Difference between revisions of "Cross-Examination"
From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Justice Antonin Scalia of the United States Supreme Court has called cross-examination the crucible in which the reliability of evidence is tested . Because cross-examination is the only method by which the defendant may directly challenge the veracity of a government witnesses testimony, it is one of the most fundamental and important rights. | Justice Antonin Scalia of the United States Supreme Court has called cross-examination the crucible in which the reliability of evidence is tested . Because cross-examination is the only method by which the defendant may directly challenge the veracity of a government witnesses testimony, it is one of the most fundamental and important rights. | ||
| − | Direct examination and cross-examination have very different purposes and techniques. | + | Direct examination and cross-examination have very different purposes and techniques. Direct examination requires the witness to tell a story. The goal of direct examination is for the criminal defender to elicit the witness's story in the witness's own words in a manner that will advance the overall theory of the case. |
| − | |||
| − | Direct examination requires the witness to tell a story. The goal of direct examination is for the criminal defender to elicit the witness's story in the witness's own words in a manner that will advance the overall theory of the case. | ||
Cross-examination, on the other hand, is a selective, targeted attack on the prosecutor's theory of the case. It is not simply rehashing the testimony that was developed during the direct examination of the witness. The criminal defender seeks to develop points that will show that the witness's testimony is inconsistent with other testimony or evidence; that the witness is biased against the defendant; that the witness has a motive to testify against the defendant; that the witness (if he is a co-defendant) had the opportunity to commit the crime; that the witness lacks knowledge of the facts and the evidence in the case; and that the witness was unable to see, hear, perceive, and observe the major events in the case. | Cross-examination, on the other hand, is a selective, targeted attack on the prosecutor's theory of the case. It is not simply rehashing the testimony that was developed during the direct examination of the witness. The criminal defender seeks to develop points that will show that the witness's testimony is inconsistent with other testimony or evidence; that the witness is biased against the defendant; that the witness has a motive to testify against the defendant; that the witness (if he is a co-defendant) had the opportunity to commit the crime; that the witness lacks knowledge of the facts and the evidence in the case; and that the witness was unable to see, hear, perceive, and observe the major events in the case. | ||
